Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am surprised by the Minister's reply. The papers that I passed to him show that Professor Roy Brown has looked at more than 115 areas for up to 30 years and that, according to his research, mammal predation accounts for between one-third and three-quarters of all songbird predation losses. Therefore, having read Professor Brown's report, does the Minister agree that it is clear that mammal predation is one of the most important factors in the decline of our songbirds? Would the Government put forward and fund their own research once they have got over the funding shortcomings that they have at present?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the accuracy of the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd on the last occasion when we discussed this matter; they were absolutely correct. Secondly, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was accepted, we would not be able to guarantee ratification because those forum amendments are outwith the treaty. Therefore, it would be open to our American colleagues to say that they were not prepared to ratify the treaty unless and until those provisions were expunged. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that in realpolitik, although we might be accused of acting in bad faith in not having raised those matters, the benefits of the treaty are so clear that the Americans may feel obliged to concur. That is not a way in which we do business in this country; it is not a way in which we ratify and deal with treaties.
	I heard the noise that came from the other side, but I remind the House that this treaty was negotiated in a similar way to the way in which many other treaties were negotiated. There may be a feeling in this House that in future we should not be able to enter into treaties unless and until Parliament has spoken and has gone through every scintilla, and until every "i" has been dotted and every "t" has been crossed. But that is not how we do business at the moment, and it is not how any Government before us have done business. However, that is probably a debate for another day.
	To deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in relation to the 1985 position, I assure him that the 1985 supplementary treaty disapplies the political offence in extradition. That has been continued in the 2003 treaty. The situation to which the noble Lord referred could not now occur.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have just two brief points to make in response to what the noble Baroness said. First, we are in the same position on the question whether the forum amendment would involve renegotiation of the treaty. As I understand it, she maintains—and I agree—that the United States, not having yet taken the final step of exchange of instruments and ratification could, in theory, decide not to proceed with the exchange of instruments, in which case the treaty would not come into force. On the other hand, if they proceed with the exchange of instruments of ratification, because the forum matter is, as she said, outwith the treaty, the treaty would be perfectly valid without any renegotiation. I understand that to be the position, and I think that that is the answer to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
	The Minister's only other argument is that this would delay extradition. To a slight degree, that must be correct, but it is also true that the real reason why extradition took so long in this country is that, on several occasions under the old procedure, matters had to be referred to the Home Secretary for a decision. There was a judicial review each time the Home Secretary took a decision. This was clearly abused. Under the new procedure, whether or not the forum amendment is accepted, there will be no scope for similar discretionary decisions by the Home Secretary, so the main cause of delay will be excluded. What is left of delay is a price plainly worth paying for justice. I therefore still firmly believe that the forum amendment should be added to the Extradition Act.
	My immediate thought, on learning of the position of the Conservative party on this issue, was of a poem that many noble Lords will know:
	"The grand old Duke of York,
	He had ten thousand men,
	He marched them up to the top of the hill,
	And he marched them down again".
	If one substitutes the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that of the Duke of York, and 200 Peers for 10,000 men, that is exactly the position which the Conservative party is in now. It is not only feeble but positively shameful, and I hope that a number of noble Lords on the Conservative Back Benches will join the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in supporting us in the Division Lobby.
	In December 2003, we were the first party to battle against what we saw as unjust extradition when we opposed in both Houses the order that gave to the USA the right of extradition without evidence. If, as seems all too probable, that battle is about to come to an end, we will at least have fought it to the last. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to insert, "but do propose Amendment No. 84E as an amendment to Amendment No. 84C".—(Lord Goodhart.)

Road Safety [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1B and 1C.
	As I explained to the House when last we considered the Bill, Clause 2 is defective in a number of respects. For example, it refers to income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2). This is inaccurate and could extend to income from offences detected by police officers as well as cameras. It also refers to several undefined terms such as "safety camera scheme".
	Our obligation is to save this vitally important Road Safety Bill. Given that the House is keen that the Government should have a power to make such regulations, we have tabled Amendment No. 1C, which delivers the intended aims of Clause 2 but which is not technically defective and would be workable. As I have previously explained, new arrangements are being introduced for the integration and funding of safety cameras from 1 April 2007 which will see the end of the netting-off funding arrangement and local authorities receiving additional money for road safety through the local transport process—some £440 million over four years. This is a significant and sustained level of funding at a time when future fine incomes are not guaranteed. The House will recognise that there are already signs of improved compliance with speed limits, which, of course, has the inevitable effect of reducing the level of fine income.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers national rollout of speed awareness courses from 1 April will enable more offenders to opt for re-education rather than penalty points and fine. If anything, therefore, it is likely that the amount of fine income from speeding offences will reduce over time. This, of course, is very good news as it shows that the public are increasingly recognising the dangers associated with excessive speed. The whole purpose of speed cameras is to reduce the amount of speeding. We therefore hope and expect that the level of fine income will go down over time.
	In the event that use was made of the powers set out in Amendment No. 1C, this would be contingent on having a mechanism to ensure that the regulations did not create incentives for partnerships to drive up the level of fine income in order to secure additional income and to ensure that those partnerships which succeed in improving compliance with speed limits, thereby reducing the income from speed cameras, are not penalised by receiving less money for other road safety purposes.
	I reiterate that our obligation is to save this vitally important Road Safety Bill. I hope the House will recognise that the Government have responded to the defeat we sustained last time on this issue and that we have acted accordingly.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1B and 1C.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move Motion B, That the House do not insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 5 and do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5A and 5B in lieu.
	Use of retro-reflective tape is already permitted and many heavy vehicle operators have already opted to fit it voluntarily. We are committed to making it mandatory and believe the best mechanism for achieving this is through amendment to both EC and UNECE legislation. This route has been agreed internationally and proceedings are under way that will mandate it in European and international law. We do not believe it would make good sense to try to introduce domestic regulations covering only UK-registered vehicles while European and international legislation is being prepared to introduce a "universal" requirement to fit the tape.
	In addition, the legal basis for making such UK-specific regulations before tape fitment is mandated by EC and UNECE law is at best uncertain. If we were to introduce regulations by the end of 2007, I cannot be sure that we would not be open to challenge and possibly to infraction proceedings.
	Unilateral Italian requirements on this subject have been mentioned, and there has been some confusion over this. Let me make clarify the position. I have a copy of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Commission for the Italians advising them, among other things, of their obligation to include a mutual recognition clause relating to other member states or EFTA countries signatory to the EEA agreement, and suggesting they reconsider their legislation.
	In addition, I can confirm that the Enterprise Directorate-General website lists the Commission, Germany, France and the UK as all having commented on the draft Italian ministerial decree on retro-reflective materials for heavy vehicles and trailers. The UK view is that, because UNECE Regulation 48 specifically mentions Regulation 104 tape as "optional", that reference establishes competence on this subject, taking it away from individual member states.
	Let me make it clear that the UK is not pressing for infraction proceedings against the Italians, nor do we in any way oppose amending UNECE and EC legislation to mandate the use of retro-reflective tape on heavy vehicles and trailers. But we maintain that the Italian measure is unlawful under existing legislation, and that it would be unlawful for us to follow the Italians in doing this. It would also be impractical, for reasons I shall explain.
	Structural requirements for vehicles are not a matter of individual member state competence. As a result, there can be no possibility of introducing national regulations intended to apply to foreign-registered as well as UK-registered vehicles. I think that that is obvious to everyone. The question of regulations covering only UK-registered vehicles is not so clear cut. We could make regulations, under existing powers, to require the fitment of retro-reflective tape to newly-registered UK heavy vehicles. However, we would not be able to enforce that on all UK-registered vehicles, as I shall explain in a moment.
	If we did try to make such regulations, we would need to notify them to the European Commission under the technical standards directive. I suspect that if we did so, the regulations would be held up, possibly on the grounds that the EC is in the process of legislating on the same subject. If we tried to get round that by failing to notify the EC, our requirement would be unenforceable.
	If, by some chance, the regulations did go through, we would none the less be obliged to register vehicles which were presented for registration correctly approved to UNECE Regulation 48 and/or the lighting installation directive, but not fitted with the tape. Those approvals do not require the tape, but we are duty bound to accept vehicles which are in line with them. It would be embarrassing were we thereafter to claim that such vehicles, even though correctly registered for use in the UK, were not in fact lawful for use on the public road because they lacked the tape. I can imagine only that the Italians may be avoiding such difficulties by applying their regulations only to Italian registered vehicles, which do not have Regulation 48 or lighting installation directive approval. Otherwise, I feel sure that aggrieved owners and operators in Italy would have appealed on the grounds that the law was being breached.
	As I understand it, such regulations could be challenged on several fronts. For example, they would discriminate under general Community law principles, or possibly even on a human rights basis, against UK vehicles. They would be outwith the lighting installation directive and UNECE obligations and would prejudice the single market, which is the point of harmonisation.
	Clause 16 is also deeply flawed in that, unlike the existing powers which it reflects, it does not contain provisions specifying offences and penalties. Therefore, even if the Secretary of State made regulations under the power to require the fitment of retro-reflective tape to heavy trucks and trailers, owners and operators who failed to comply would commit no offence and face no penalties.
	In view of these factors, and because it makes no sense to make regulations requiring the tape for UK vehicles alone when work is already in hand to require it universally, we remain opposed to the making of early, unilateral regulations on this subject. We should do far better to rely on the powers which we already have, which already cover reflective tape and include provision for enforcement and penalties. We have undertaken to use these powers as soon as permitted to do so by European and UNECE regulations. Additionally, we have undertaken to discuss with industry how it might best prepare for the introduction of this mandate, to which we are committed, including the possibility of early introduction on a voluntary basis.
	Some people have argued that it would be worth trying to introduce an early, UK-only, mandatory requirement because it would save lives. While we recognise that the tape is useful, we are not convinced that it will achieve highly significant accident savings in this country. While the tape is helpful in improving conspicuity during the hours of darkness and in conditions of poor visibility, UK trucks are already equipped with various aids, such as side marker lights and rear retro-reflective plates. The tape's road safety effects will therefore not be as great as they may be in some other countries.
	I have heard some people quote overall UK heavy vehicle accident statistics, assuming that the introduction of the tape would have an immediate and beneficial effect. It must be remembered, however, that the tape will have no effect on day-time, good-visibility incidents. It will have an effect only on incidents taking place in the dark or in conditions of poor visibility, and only in those cases where lack of conspicuity is a contributory cause. There are other causes of accidents, such as speed, drink-driving, ice, oil or obstructions on the road, mechanical failure and reckless driving.
	In 2005, Loughborough University carried out a study on retro-reflective tape—copies of which are in the Library of the House—for the Department for Transport. The report noted:
	"Accident reduction figures ... from ... American data involved comparison of the accident involvement of vehicles with [retro-reflective] contour marking ... and ... those with no retro-reflective markings. Whereas in the UK reflectors and lighting on the rear and sides of HGV[s] ... are already required ... to improve ... conspicuity".
	Therefore, the addition of retro-reflective tape may not result in reduction rates in the UK similar to those which have been observed in America. The estimate of gains from fitting the tape is therefore likely to be optimistic.
	Nevertheless, I reiterate that we intend to introduce the mandatory requirement as soon as we can, consistent with its applying to the whole of Europe. For the reasons I have outlined, it is not right that we should do it unilaterally. Accordingly, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 5 and do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5A and 5B in lieu.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his last point about that word, which I do not intend to repeat! But I accept his point. He says that there should be pressure for voluntary compliance. Some vehicles are fitted with that tape—and it is permitted for people to do so. We have made it clear throughout the passage of this Bill—and we have been aided by the opposition parties, which have stressed their commitment to the concept—that we see reflective tape as an aid to road safety. It is not quite the outstanding aid that it may have been in the United States, when it proved in many cases to be the only way in which to make vehicles conspicuous on American roads. Of course, British vehicles are differently and better equipped than those in the United States.
	Nevertheless, the strip will be an aid, and we intend to make it mandatory, as soon as we have agreement throughout Europe, which is bound to be an incentive to manufacturers of vehicles to start considering whether they should put it on immediately. It does not add a huge amount to the cost of a new truck, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said last time we debated this matter. We would expect manufacturers to recognise that in due course it will be a requirement. We do not think the issue is sufficient to collide with our European partners in quite the dramatic way that might have been the result of us acting unilaterally.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for any longer than I strictly have to. Suffice to say, we know the arguments well. Sadly, we have been unable to reach any sort of agreement on the merits or suitability of this provision. It is of some concern given, as I said previously, that this is very much the most contentious part of the legislation, which we generally all support because we all support road safety.
	As my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate said so well in his letter today in the Times, to which the Minister referred, we run the risk of criminalising individuals for a momentary lapse of concentration. With your Lordships' permission, I thank my noble friend for all the help and legal expertise that he has given me over the past months.
	Of course, we have the utmost sympathy and respect for victims' families, who have lost loved ones. We all know and understand the emotion that causes, and we had some debate on that in this House. That is not the issue. The issue in this House is that Parliament should not be in the business of passing bad legislation. It pains me to say that we are on the verge of doing so, and we genuinely believe that. Your Lordships' House has rejected this legislation twice. The Minister said that it was not a very big majority the first time, but it certainly was quite a large majority the second time. Indeed, it is the overwhelming view of this House and of the wider legal profession that this legislation simply will not work.
	When one has a collective legal expertise such as we are fortunate to have in this House, one tends to listen to and respect those views, yet the Government have chosen not to listen. We have cautioned against this clause time and again, yet the Government have chosen not to take any note. This is our right in this House. The Minister has given his arguments, and we still do not accept them. We will not be voting on this today, but we will watch this legislation as it moves onto the statute book and becomes operational. If we feel that it has unfortunate consequences, we shall look for some future opportunity to reverse it and create more suitable legislation.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, clearly, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield is right that we should not pursue this any further and we should agree to the Motion. If the Opposition make a mistake in voting or in procedure, we have to live with it; the Minister isright on that point. However, I am convinced that Clause 20 is misconceived.
	Although the amendment does not concern the automatic disqualification of drivers convicted of this offence, we have touched on it. In my view, automatic disqualification for what might have been the most minor of errors, admittedly with very tragic consequences, is the fatal flaw. In those circumstances, a minor driving flaw will not result in a custodial sentence, but the six-month ban will mean that motorists prosecuted for this offence will fight like hell in the Crown Court. The way in which this provision was introduced is not the Minister's fault, but equally I am quite sure that some Minister will have to come to this House and propose amendments to the provisions in Clause 20. You only have to think of the unintended consequences of an acquittal in the Crown Court because a jury is reluctant to acquit for a minor error of driving. The consequences will be loss of licence, which will inevitably lead to loss of employment for those who have to drive for their living. So I am disappointed in the way that this whole business was introduced at a late stage in the Bill. I am sorry that we have been unable to debate this matter as thoroughly as your Lordships would have liked, but, at the end of the day, we shall have to leave this one.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, we are in a sad position, as this is bad legislation that will do injustice. None the less, I thank the Minister because, although we have disagreed strongly on all these matters, he has been unfailingly courteous and his ministerial colleagues have given me a good deal of time to try to explain the position and to tease out what I believe are great flaws in this legislation.
	I am sorry, but I cannot resile from the fact thatthis legislation has been rushed. A mistake was made on 10 January. I was certainly part of the mistake, which was made by everyone, including, I say with great respect, the House authorities, and I do not believe that the Government realised at that time that there had been a mistake. Let me just remind noble Lords what happened. After we voted on Amendment No. 4, which kicked out prison sentences from the magistrates' courts, the words from the chair were, "Amendments 5 to 8 not moved? Not moved"—and the crucial Amendment No. 5 disappeared into the ether.
	That is the difficulty of being rushed. Because the matter was not brought before your Lordships' House until Report stage, instead of there being three opportunities to consider and vote on it—in Committee, on Report and, if necessary, at Third Reading—there was an opportunity to vote on it only at Third Reading. If we had known about the matter at the beginning, at Second Reading, I am sure that it would have been corrected either in Committee or on Report. Therefore, I warn the House and, with great respect, the Government against bringing forward very important measures at this stage.
	The Minister said that the matter had been carefully considered beforehand. I beg to disagree. There was a short consultation period, which lasted two and a half months. The Minister may tell me that that is normal, but it seemed to me to be very short. I find it very surprising that, despite being warned against the serious potential injustice of this matter by the Lord Chief Justice, the Council of Circuit Judges and the Justices' Clerks' Society, who all know exactly what they are talking about in this area, the Government should charge ahead.
	Why is this going to cause injustice? The Minister said that it would somehow all be put right by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I shall look with the greatest interest to see what the poor Sentencing Guidelines Council will say about this measure, which has filleted out the very well understood distinction between dangerous driving and careless driving. Dangerous driving falls far below the standards to be expected from a reasonable and prudent driver and applies to circumstances where the driver knew or should have known that what he was doing was dangerous and was likely to hurt or kill someone. Careless driving is simply that other area of driving that, sadly, is all too common, but which simply falls below the ordinary standard.
	Dangerous driving is massively more likely to cause death than careless driving is. Although statistics in this area are not extensive, they clearly show that dangerous driving is at least 20 times more likely to cause a death than careless driving is, yet 31,000 people are currently convicted of careless driving. It will be tragic for the victims and for the driver, but some of those incidents will lead to death. How is a court now to tease out in which of those cases of careless driving that cause death it would be just to impose a prison sentence?
	I say to the House that nowhere in all our law, in any field of life, do we impose prison sentences for ordinary negligence. I was astonished to see Alistair Darling seeming to propound the principle that sounded like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. He said that a life is a life however it comes to be lost—I may not be quoting exactly, but that was the nub of it. Will that principle be carried to teachers who take children on outings or to doctors and nurses who have to administer drugs? Will it apply to industry and commerce? If people are to be sent to prison for ordinary negligence, we are in an uncertain and potentially unjust world.
	I come back to careless driving—I will not go on for too long. When it is between dangerous and careless driving, whether it be in the Crown Court or the magistrates' court, the prosecution must set out clearly what those dangerous ingredients are that justify a conviction for dangerous driving. In the right case, a sentence—possibly a severe sentence—would be justified for causing death or, indeed, for the dangerous driving itself. What are the ingredients of careless driving that will justify the prison sentence? Prosecutors in our world do not ask for sentences. It is contrary to our tradition.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with permission I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"I would like to make a Statement on the single payment scheme administered by the Rural Payments Agency."In my Written Statements on 9 May and 5 July, and my oral Statement on 22 June, I said that the well rehearsed difficulties in the administration of the 2005 single payment scheme would create challenges for delivery of the 2006 scheme, and I promised to keep the House informed of developments. On this occasion, as on every other, I would like to reiterate the apologies that I have offered to farmers on behalf of my department, and my commitment to remedy the problems. Today I can report progress under the 2005 scheme, and plans for the 2006 scheme. But the interim chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency and I are clear that much more needs to be done to learn the right lessons from the National Audit Office's recent report and to build on helpful guidance that I am sure we will see in the forthcoming reports from the EFRA Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Office of Government Commerce and the Hunter review. "As I mentioned in my Written Statement on5 July, the total amount to be paid by the Rural Payments Agency for the 2005 scheme will not be known for certain until the last claim is completely validated and necessary corrections are made. However, the latest estimate, at 3 November, puts the figureat £1.528 billion, of which over £1.516 billion—99.2 per cent—has now been paid. Moreover, 110,244 claimants have received a full payment and a further 4,756 have received a partial payment and are awaiting their top-up. This combined total of 115,000 represents 98.5 per cent of the revised estimated total claimant population—116,661—entitled to a payment."All but 50 of the claimants still awaiting any payment are currently calculated to have a claim value of less than €1,000. The 50 cases are all difficult cases, involving issues such as probate or business liquidation, which would be challenging in any year. Dedicated teams are in place to deal with these cases and the other outstanding payments as soon as possible. Similarly, on hill farm allowance payments, some 95 per cent of claimants have received a full or partial payment, and a dedicated team is exploring all avenues to make the outstanding payments as soon as possible. "During October, the Rural Payments Agency moved the bulk of its processing staff to detailed validation of the 2006 claims. Initial validation of those claims has been undertaken over the summer and has gone relatively smoothly. The same can be said of the 2006 round of eligibility inspections. However, the difficulties involved in completing 2005 claim processing have inevitably impacted on the 2006 payment timetable. "Everyone wants claims to be paid in full as soon as possible. I understand that, and the new management of the RPA are dedicated to building stability and predictability into the system so that full claims are delivered in an efficient and timely way. However, the interim chief executive has reported to me that he can not guarantee that the agency can deliver full payments within the payment window for the 2006 scheme. Neither he nor I believe that it is acceptable to expect farmers to wait until next June or beyond for payments. I have therefore agreed with the RPA a challenging formal performance target of paying 96.14 per cent of valid 2006 claims by 30 June 2007, and it is determined to do all in its powers to deliver on that. In addition, I have also decided to pursue a partial payment plan."Our aims can be simply stated. First, we want to maximise payments to farmers that arrive on a timely and predictable basis. That means making full payments where possible and partial payments where necessary. Secondly, we want to minimise the risk of late payment penalties and disallowance. Thirdly, we want our decisions this year to help the RPA to establish a new and sound footing for the delivery of the single payment scheme in future."I have therefore agreed with the RPA that where full payments are not possible in the early part of next year, partial payments should start in mid-February for eligible claims above €1,000. The RPA estimates that the process will take around three weeks. Payments will be made for not less than 50 per cent of claim value. This reflects the level that EU regulations permit without diverting significant resource away from, and therefore delaying, work on validating claims for full payments."Needless to say, I will be keeping the situation under close review, but the interim chief executive of the RPA has set out for me and Lord Rooker the basis on which he is confident that partial payments can be made and we believe, in part on the basis of the partial payment experience in May this year, that the money will be delivered. "The single payment scheme and its administration have caused distress to farmers. The only way to make good on this year's problems is to improve the management of the system so that confidence is rebuilt. I have set out clearly that this will not happen overnight, but I believe that the staged approach that I have set out is the only one that is prudent and responsible, and I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We are grateful to him for the update. I remind the House of my family's farming interest.
	I am disappointed by the Statement because the problems that occurred with the 2005 scheme, which resulted in chaotic late payments, have not been addressed and the Statement does not guarantee that the agency will deliver the 2006 scheme within the payment window. I am sure that that disappoints the Minister as well. The 2005 scheme meant a 50 per cent increase in calls to the rural crisis network,farm borrowing rising by £379 million in one year, RPA administration costs rising by £46.5 million—two year's worth of the hill farm allowance—and £131 million being set aside for EU penalties. It was not a happy situation.
	Of 2005 single payments, 110,244 were paid in full by 3 November, but that still leaves 4,756 partial payments awaiting top-up. Why has it not been possible for them to be paid? When will the problem be resolved? The Minister said that 50 claimants were awaiting any payment at all. He said that this was due to probate or business liquidation. How many fall into either category? When does he anticipate that these issues will be resolved?
	The Statement refers to "dedicated" teams. When they are established, will an individual be allocated to a farmer or is the RPA working to an overall dedicated team approach? What is the position regarding permanent or temporary staff? The Statement goes on to say that the validation of the 2006 payment scheme has gone relatively smoothly. Perhaps the Minister will share with the House what aspects have not gone smoothly and what has been done to rectify this. The Statement refers to the National Audit Office's report and reflects the Minister's intention to build "helpful guidance". I have looked again at recommendations 23 to 32. Which of these has been actioned, or has no progress been made to date?
	Why was Germany, which adopted a similar dynamic system to ours, able to pay its farmers on time and what within our system made that impossible? At the time we had discussions about mapping, IT systems and human error. Were those difficulties also experienced by Germany or do we have lessons to learn from it? Will the Minister confirm that the mapping issues which created great difficulties in last year's scheme have all been rectified and that the problem will not occur again? Are the IT systems now compatible or is there an ongoing problem?
	According to the Statement, those to whom the 2006 payment cannot be paid in full will receive a minimum of 50 per cent. To some farmers that will be a disappointment, because this year when they eventually received it, they were paid 80 per cent as a partial payment.
	Some 95 per cent of hill farm payments were paid. That leaves some 700 of the most pressed farmers without any money to which they are entitled. Further to our debate on the delayed rural development programme yesterday, can the Minister tell us more, or will he acknowledge that those hill farmers may be doubly hit by the cancellation of that project?
	How confident is the Minister that proper controls have been put in place to ensure that the 2006 system will run smoothly? Has the relationship between the Minister and the RPA chief executive been resolved? In the past there was a certain lack of understanding and accountability. Has somebody been allocated to take overall responsibility and control? In the past, answers to questions on progress have not been forthcoming. Will the Minister ensure that such questions are answered? The 2005 system was riddled with incompetence. We cannot accept that with regard to the 2006 payments.
	The sum of £131 million was put aside in case the EU called back on that money because the system ran late. Will that be an additional budget deficit to the £200 million that is already forecast for Defra?
	Finally, is the Minister satisfied that the RPA's new "sound footing" for the future delivery of the single farm payment is in place? Will he share with us what exactly this new "sound footing" is? I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to his response.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for allowing us sight of it beforehand. The NAO report on the single payment scheme states in part 4:
	"The single payment scheme has cost more to implement than expected and many of the financial savings forecast are unlikely to materialise".
	That is a damning criticism of what has happened. I do not blame the Minister personally for that. A lotof hard work was done by staff to try to rescue this failing scheme. But I note in an Answer in theother place today to our Treasury spokesman that £2.9 million was paid in bonuses to Defra staff last year. I trust that they are not in the employ of the RPA, otherwise they must think that they have won the lottery.
	I note, as the noble Baroness said, that according to the Statement, 110,244 farmers have received the full payment but, like her, I note that 4,756, had received only a partial payment. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this question now, but I should like him to investigate. There are several hundred farmers on the Welsh border whose main holding is in Wales but who have land in England. Many of them have received no payment at all and yet on the land they occupy in Wales, they were paid in December 2005. They are still waiting for the payment in England in November 2006, but have had nothing. There is a big problem there which I ask the Minister to expedite.
	There is a reference to hill farm allowance payments, where the Statement reads:
	"Similarly, on hill farm allowance payments, some 95 per cent of claimants have received a full or partial payment".
	I regard that statement as pure spin, because we do not know what is the breakdown between those who have had a full payment and those who have had only a partial payment. What percentage of those farmers remain to receive top-up payments? During the past fortnight, it was mentioned that some applications had been rejected. Have they been resubmitted? What is the situation there on those hill farms? There is a lot of hardship among livestock farmers as a resultof that.
	The Minister admitted, via his chief executive, that the RPA would be unstable for a considerable time. At least there has now been a reality check about the situation. Given the shambles that has occurred, the basic policy elicited in the Statement—that full payment will be made where possible in future and partial payments where necessary—is a move forward, but it is the best of a very bad job. The situation is ironic when many of us were advocating partial payment, way back—I am talking about more than 12 months ago. In the early part of next year, I note that partial payments will start in mid-February, which is still late when you think that payments in Scotland and Wales will have been made in December this year, next month. Even then, less than 50 per cent of the claim will be paid during that window of opportunity.
	The statement that the Government are confident that partial payments can be made does not inspire confidence in me or, I am sure, many farmers. A staged approach, although very necessary in the situation, is really a back marker. What part has Accenture, the IT consultant, played in all that? The same company is involved in the IT shambles in the NHS contract, where a £12.4 billion cost has been incurred but there is not as yet any delivery of that system. In this case, the contract costs have nearly doubled to £50.3 million, as the NAO report says. Indeed, the total overspend of the implementation is £46.5 million. This is serious money, which farmers would have really appreciated if it had ended up in their hard work. Farming, as the Minister knows, is a relentless occupation. Every penny is hard-earned. One can judge that a different scheme in England, possibly an in-house payment scheme, would have been a far better solution.
	The NAO report concludes in part 5:
	"Better management of the risks could have reduced the disruption experienced".
	Surely the problems in this scheme should have been apparent in 2004-05. There are many lessons for the future, and it is clear that a greater hands-on approach by Ministers and senior civil servants would have ferreted out these problems at the time and made it clear that a contingency plan needed to be formed, as it became more and more apparent that the scheme would fail in the future. It was obvious that this was going to happen, but unfortunately Ministers were not told the truth. The story has been one of negligence.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best in the time available to answer as many of the questions that have been asked as possible. I will have to write to any noble Lords whose questions I have not answered, because I am limited to answering questions from the Front Benches.
	It is no good asking me for guarantees. Both the Secretary of State and I have made the Statement, so that is it. It is absolutely clear, and we have confidence in it, based on the information that we have received from the Rural Payments Agency. We are not going beyond it; it is as simple as that. We are trying to learn the lessons from what has happened this year, and we need to give people confidence, but extra promises and dates—forget it. We will try to deliver, and the RPA staff will work their socks off to deliver what we have promised today.
	The noble Baroness asked me about 20 questions, some of which I will not be able to answer. The £130 million is not cash, and it will not be called on, as the Secretary of State said in the other place. It does not do to talk this situation up. We have paid within 1 per cent of the legal requirement by 30 June. In other words, we have paid within 1 per cent of the 96.14 per cent. We do not know what will happen about disallowances and penalties from the European Union; it may be a couple of years before we do. That is nothing to do with the budget deficit of the £200 million. As I said, it is not a cash sum.
	We will give partial top-ups as soon as possible. I cannot say how many of the 50 payments involve probate or business partnership disputes, because other factors are involved. Those are the two examples that we have given, but there are more, and they would have happened in the normal course of events under the old payment schemes. Only 50 are above €1,000; all the rest are less than €1,000.
	The dedicated teams are working on the payments that we have not made, as well as on the hill farm allowances, for 2005. The system of working will be different for 2006. It will not be task-based as under the old system, in which a farmer's form was dealt with by any one, or possibly by up to three or four, of the RPA offices around the country at any one time. Once all the farmers' forms have been divided up, each form will be dealt with in one of the offices by a team of 12 or 25 people—I cannot remember the exact figures. They have been training for that process throughout the summer.
	The validation process has gone relatively smoothly. The first stage, which is relatively easy, was all done in one office at Workington. I visited it when the validation was being done. That is the easy part. The second stage of validation is the one that takes the time. That is when the full payments are made, which is why we can say that we will make full payments where we can and partial payments where we cannot. So it is true that some farmers will get full payments, because they will have gone through the validation process by the time the buttons are pressed.
	I will get further information on Germany, which had problems with its system. The RPA staff went to Germany to discuss whether there were any mutual problems, which I fully accept is a point that comes up constantly.
	Bearing in mind that we have paid most of the claims for 2005, except for those with which we have had problems, we should not have too many mapping problems in 2006. Most field boundaries do not change. However, it is surprising how many change through the sale of fields or fields being split up. There will be those difficulties, but I will not rest on that. I do not say that the mapping issues will be on the same scale as last year—clearly they will not—because 40,000 extra customers to whom we had not paid food subsidies in the past and whose fields we did not know about were brought into the scheme. Those fields are called "pony paddocks"— perhaps it is not quite as crude as that, but we are talking about very small claims. These claims are in the system, so we should not have to go through that again. Some claimants got so little that they gave up, which is why the number of claimants for this year is lower than last year.
	The IT system is evolving. The plans for this programme beggar belief. I will not go over the past, but I have to live with it. Updates and other aspects of the system have to be dealt with constantly. It is agreed that sugar has to be incorporated into the programme in order that the 17,000 sugar farmers will get their subsidy, which was done differently this year. There are some programme upgrades that still have to be done. It is not one system that is in place and on which we can just press the buttons in the following year and out will come the money. It is not like that. Starting in mid-February, we are confident that a minimum of 50 per cent of each claim will be made 10 weeks earlier than 80 per cent of partial payments were made last year. That has to be a massive boost to and improvement in cash flow for farmers in comparison with what happened this year. I realise that a few farmers received payments early this year, but the vast majority got partial payments in the middle of May. I cannot go beyond what I have already said on the hill farm allowance, but I will give a further report because we still need to do that.
	As I said in the Statement, we are confident that there are good relations between ourselves and the new management of the RPA. Members of the other place have a representative capacity. I have promised that I will hold surgeries during the winter on a weekly basis, if necessary. I met three dozen representatives recently. It is important for them to know that they can come to see the Minister every week. I will have someone from the RPA with me so that we can iron out problems as they arise. There has to be more contact between the Minister and farmers' representatives. I do not say that people in this House do not have contact, but I am doing the surgery for Members of the House of Commons, which was well received.
	I am not playing around with the Statement, but as regards putting the RPA on a sound footing for following years, I do not want to work one year at a time. On the basis of what we do this year, I want the RPA to be thinking about 2007. At the moment, I am still looking at the form for 2007, which we will sign off shortly. I want the RPA to know that it will not work piecemeal each year with one scheme to another. I am not saying that partial payments will be at the same times next year, but I want the RPA to be set up so that we can have as near the same system each year until we can make substantial changes.
	I have come to the end of the time allocated for the Opposition Front Benches. In respect of Wales, we are checking the problems of the border. I was asked about the bonuses to staff. The RPA deals with the single farm payment scheme. It also pays out on 41 other schemes relating to food and agriculture. It pays subsidies—the biggest goes to Tate and Lyle, which gets some £120 million. The idea that farmers get most of the money is not true. I repeat—the RPA administers 41 schemes. Because there has been a problem with a high-profile scheme, you cannot say that the targets people were working to in the other schemes should deny them their performance bonuses. I do not say that it should be excluded, but the RPA wants to run a better system for the single farm payment and to maintain the quality of the other schemes that it operates, which, because I do not get any questions about them, tells me that it is doing a good job.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister has made a brave defence of the present position, but would it be right to interpret the figures and percentages he has given today as suggesting that even now, as regards the payments that people should have received by June for 2004-05, some 4,500 farmers have received only 50 per cent and 1,500 nothing? Further, is it not the case that as regards the "challenging formal performance target" for next year, referred to in the Statement with the implication that it may be too challenging to meet, it is planned that over 4,000 farmers will get only 50 per cent by June of the coming year? Lastly, because of cost overruns in Defra we have seen extremely worrying accounts about cuts in other Defra expenditure programmes quite unconnected with the RPA. Is it correct that cuts are being made in the Environment Agency, in Natural England and in laboratories within the State Veterinary Service?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the last one, no. No cuts have been made in the State Veterinary Service. The other morning, "Farming Today" lined up someone effectively to call me a liar. I have made statements in this House, and they have been made in the other place, to the effect that there have been no cuts in the State Veterinary Service; in fact, it has had £16 million more this year than it had last year, and £3 million was a resource figure swapped over for capital. The total budget stayed the same. I have to knock this one; there have been no cuts whatever. People outside are worried that we are playing fast and loose with food safety and animal welfare. It is simply not true. The State Veterinary Service has not been affected.
	On the other issues the noble Lord asked about, the target we have set is the European Union one: to pay 96.14 per cent of the money by 30 June next year. As we said in the Statement, the chief executive has made it clear that he cannot make the full payments by that date and hence we have had to look at partial payments. We paid out to within 1 per cent of that figure by June of this year; some 95 point something per cent of the money was paid out by June. The 4,756 people who have received a partial payment for 2005 should have received 80 per cent of the money because this year's partial payments were set at that percentage. The top-up is therefore 20 per cent. Obviously it is true that to work to that target next year suggests by implication that there would still be some money not paid out. However, the European Union target is to use the window between 1 December and 30 June to pay out 96.14 per cent of the money. Beyond that, we could be subject to penalties. For this year we have said that where we have not paid out, we will make interest payments from 30 June, and indeed we are doing that.

Lord Monson: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell us why, according to a letter in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, the interest paid by the agency on overdue payments is apparently completely withheld if the sum due is under £50? Secondly—here I declarean interest—why is the rate of interest payable only 6.75 per cent when the average rate of interest paid by farmers on their overdrafts is at least one full percentage point above that, and possibly more?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the actual payment of interest, the Statement made in the summer pointed out that it would never be enough but that we had taken advice on a formula. It was the London bank rate plus 1 per cent, and that was the rate we paid. However, the central point is why no interest is paid if the payment would be less than £50. One of the lessons we have tried to learn in this scheme, and something which has caused a problem, is that some 30,000 to 40,000 of the 120,000 claims accounted for 2 per cent of the money. We paid someone a penny in interest. The computer system is set up for 120,000 claimants and some of those claims are worth tens of thousands of pounds, but elsewhere we are dealing with tiny payments. We have a major problem here because there is no de minimis on the payment. We are going to bring in a de minimis when we are able to do so. It certainly will not be this year and I do not think it will happen in 2007, but we are not going to compound the sin of not having a de minimis payment on the single farm payment by not having one on interest payments. We could have ended up sending out cheques for a few pennies, so that the letter would be worth a couple of pounds less than the stamp. We decided to set a de minimise payment of nothing under £50. That was done in the interests of good administration, otherwise we would have had loads more staff on the job, it would have cost us a fortune to work out and send off the payments, and we would have then been criticised for sending out chicken feed. This is one of the issues that has caused problems surrounding single farm payments in the first place—no de minimis payments.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not going down that road. The status and situation of the chief executive officer is being dealt with by the permanent secretary of the department. It is a Civil Service management matter and the buck stops there.

Lord Monson: My Lords, may I press the Minister again on de minimis interest payments? I agree with him totally that it is not cost-effective to send out cheques for 2p or 3p or even £2 or £3. However, he will be well aware that when the boot is on the other foot, the Inland Revenue sends out tax demands for 5p or 10p, having abandoned their previous £30de minimis figure. Does he agree that a £50 de minimis is quite unusually high? Would it not be much fairer to reduce it to something like £20?

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, today is Tuesday 7 November in the year of Our Lord 2006. At the first Second Reading of this Bill, as long ago as 20 January 2005—nearly two years ago—the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said:
	"One of the most important contributions that the Government can make to facilitating and promoting activities of the charitable sector is to create a modern legislative framework for it . . . By reforming the legal and regulatory framework for charities, the Government will enable people to use charities as a means to make a difference. The Bill will help existing charities to thrive, grow and realise their full potential".—[Official Report, 20/1/05; col. 883.]
	Sadly, the Bill could not complete its passage before the general election was called.
	At the Bill's second Second Reading on 7 June 2005—a mere 18 months ago—the noble Baroness said:
	"The Government believe that a thriving charity sector is a cornerstone of a healthy society".—[Official Report, 7/6/05;col. 783.]
	Given those remarks, and the fine words that the Government use about the voluntary sector, the subsequent progress of the Bill—or lack of it—is very surprising. After that Second Reading in June 2005, there were a couple of days in Committee and on Report, in July and October respectively, with Third Reading on 8 November last year. Since that date—one year less one day—we have heard nothing. The Bill has disappeared into some legislative black hole. It has only now emerged, with two days to go before the end of the Session if we are to avoid the extraordinary spectacle of the Bill failing and falling for a second time. The Government owe the House and the charitable and voluntary sector an explanation of why their behaviour on the passage of the Bill has been so dilatory.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a bit of general knockabout, so I will treat it with the respect it deserves. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could probably tell your Lordships' better than I why the Bill was delayed at all first time round. We thought it was uncontroversial legislation. We had given it a thorough bout of House of Lords scrutiny and we thought that our colleagues at the other end, just prior to the 2005 general election, would happily see it through. Then, when the opportunity was presented to have a definitive piece of charity law on the statute book, the Conservatives in another place, for reasons best known to themselves—perhaps they saw some controversy in it that we at this end did not see—decided to knock it on the head and kill it off. That was a great shame because we have, as a consequence, spent a lot longer getting to this happy point of putting this legislation to bed and seeing it happily on its way.
	The delay is regrettable in the sense that the parliamentary process has taken rather longer than it should have, with timetabling, and so on, but it has meant that the Bill has been further scrutinised. It is probably one of the most scrutinised non-controversial Bills of all time. That is no bad thing, because it has enabled experts in the field such as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to help us sharpen it up. It has been sharpened up also by notable contributions from the Benches opposite, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, Lord Swinfen, Lord Shutt, and others. The Bill is in almost perfect form. We have a small hurdle to clear this evening, which I am sure will not detain your Lordships' House too long, except for, I am sure, very well informed questions.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I think we had degrouped the amendments, but, in the spirit of harmony which should always guide our proceedings, I am quite happy to speak to Amendment No. 2 and my Amendment No. 2A alongside the other amendments in this group, because, as the Minister pointed out, they are both concerned with Clause 2, which defines the meaning of "charitable purpose". We have no problem with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but we have tabled a further amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.
	Amendment No. 2, as drafted, sets a double test for a sport to be charitable. Not only must it involve physical or mental skill or exertion, but also it must promote health. Our amendment would remove the test of promoting health from the definition of charitable sports. As the Minister pointed out, the Government have already amended this clause considerably. Effective lobbying, of which we have all been recipients, has taken place from the Chess Federation and so on. Despite this, the amendment as proposed is flawed. The promotion of health requirement is very difficult to prove and can be contradictory. It sets a double threshold for charitable status which may well prove too high for some very worthy potential recipients. It is also superfluous. The public benefit test, as laid out in Clause 3, combined with proof of some sort of mental and physical exertion, should surely be more than adequate for the Government's purposes.
	Several comments were made in the debate in another place about the difficulty of proving a health benefit. We have so far heard or seen nothing to explain exactly what standard of proof will be needed. If we are not to proceed with our amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how the Charity Commission proposes to assess studies purporting to show health benefits. Numerous reports have appeared in the press which suggest that certain mental exercises, including sudoku and others, may help delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease, yet the Alzheimer's Society's website makes no mention of this or other mental exercises. There is no conclusive proof either way. This is tricky territory that depends on medical advice, which will often be contradictory. Why do we have to land the Charity Commission with this difficulty?
	The test is also inherently contradictory for many sports. One needs only think about boxing and other martial arts to see that the practice of these sports can both promote and damage one's health. The training needed to excel is no doubt good for you, but the injuries that occur routinely in the fights surely are not. It is possible to be extremely fit, and yet not to be healthy. The high levels of serious injuries and long-term health problems that afflict our most accomplished sportsmen and women would bear that out.
	Our amendment would resolve all these contradictions and confusions and come to the Minister's aid. The Government's view that sport is only a good thing because of the health benefits it brings is extraordinary. Religious organisations and those whose purpose is education may now have to prove public benefit, but they are not being asked to prove that they directly improve job opportunities or personal morality, or reduce crime. Why is sport considered less intrinsically beneficial? Why do the Government consider the many skills and traits that sport encourages, such as personal motivation, self-confidence and team work, irrelevant?

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am quite clear that Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are fine, although I have never understood why the word "efficiency" was used in the charitable purpose clause. However, it is certainly right that the police and fire rescue services should be included.
	Secondly, on sport, I read the Commons debate in Hansard and cannot really fathom the reasoning for the proposal—and then I ask myself whether it matters, and I do not know. The test is to ask the Minister whether he, as someone who is interested in sport and understands the word "sport" far more than I do, for example, can think of any example of an exclusion. I think that that would help us. What does he believe would be excluded because it is not thought of as promoting health? If we have an answer to that, it may give us a clue whether we should support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a useful discussion to have, and I am sure that at the end I shall in part agree—personally—with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. How much difference it will make is not for me to estimate, but it is an important question to raise. The matter revolves around the question why we should not make all sport charitable instead of requiring a link to health improvement. That is the kernel of the debate.
	Charity is based on the requirement to show public benefit. To qualify as a charity, a sports club would have to be able to show that the facilities and opportunities that it provided for participants led to a public benefit. The most obvious form of benefit from public participation in sport—I would claim, without discounting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—is the health benefit. It is true that there are many sports in which you can suffer an injury, including even innocent sports such as cricket, which is my favourite sport, or running, which I do to try to sustain a level of fitness. So of course it is possible to have a disbenefit, although you are a pursuing a healthy lifestyle, but there is overall a benefit from public participation in sport. I think that we would all acknowledge that—which is why we have thought it right to define sport in terms of its potential to improve health.
	However, a sports organisation that could show that its activities resulted in another form of public benefit could also qualify as a charity under one of the other charitable categories, rather than the amateur sport category. There are, for example, charities that use sports, such as riding, or target shooting, to help those with a disability. There are others that use sports or games, such as chess—perhaps even sudoku, for all I know—to achieve an educational objective. However, a real alternative exists for clubs that cannot show an identifiable public benefit in a charitable sense, or that do not want to be charities: the Community Amateur Sports Club, or CASC, scheme. That scheme is for clubs which are open to the whole community; are organised on an amateur basis; and have as their main purpose providing facilities for, and promoting participation in, one or more eligible sports.
	An eligible sport for the purpose of the CASC scheme means any sport which is on SportEngland's list of recognised sports. The underlying purposeof the CASC scheme is to promote grassroots participation in sport. A club registered in the CASC scheme is entitled to many, if not quite all, of the tax reliefs that charities enjoy. So, one way or another, there is encouragement for virtually every type of amateur sports organisation. For those that can demonstrate a public benefit in the charitable sense, there are two potential routes. One is through the charitable heading of advancement of amateur sport for those that meet the new definition of sport; the second is through some other charitable heading, such as the advancement of education, or the relief of those in need by reason of disability. For those that cannot demonstrate a public benefit in the charitable sense, or simply do not want charitable status, there is the CASC scheme.
	The inclusion of an express health requirement is in our view the most transparent way in which to proceed. Let us consider the effect of leaving out any reference to health. A sports club applying to register with the commission under the advancement of amateur sport heading would have to do two things. First, it would have to show that the activities it promoted qualified as a sport under the definition of sport. With the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson's amendment, a range of activities that made no contribution to health would be able to do that. On the physical side, the noble Lord would admit pie-throwing, for example, or perhaps even dangerous sports such as tobogganing down Ben Nevis on a piano, or being launched from a catapult as a human projectile. On the mental side he would admit, for example, arcade games, poker, pub quizzes and so on.
	What is unsatisfactory about that is not that we disapprove of those activities per se. It is simply that some activities, of which those I have mentioned might be examples, have little or no chance of demonstrating the required public benefit or, consequently, of acquiring charitable status. In considering the public benefit aspect of a sports club applying to register as a charity for the advancement of sport, the Charity Commission would look for a health benefit, since that is the legal basis on which sports clubs can already be accepted as charitable. We do not think there is any point—indeed we think it would be positively misleading—to give sports and games which do not contribute to health, or which might even have the opposite effect, the impression that they might succeed in gaining charitable status. We would be giving a misleading impression if we went the route of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
	Sports that can demonstrate nothing by way of charitable public benefit have an alternative route: the Community Amateur Sports Club scheme, which admits sports not by reference to whether they are good for health but by reference to the extensive list of sports recognised by SportEngland.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked a specific question in his own inimitable style. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord because, much as I should like to speculate on examples of sports that do not meet the health criteria—and it would be fun to do so; we could have quite an entertaining time—it is not really for Ministers to do that. That is really a job for the Charity Commission, which must decide on the definition established by Parliament. The commission will undertake public consultation when the new definition is in force, which will give every sport the opportunity to put its case that it qualifies as a sport within the new definition. So those pie-throwing sports folk, who come from somewhere else in this universe, could launch their argument if they so wished and thought that it was a valid thing to argue as a sport.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am glad he mentioned cricket. I have had first-hand experience of his cricketing prowess, since I met him at the check-in queue at Heathrow airport at some ungodly hour when he was flying to play cricket in Lisbon with the parliamentary cricket team. That said, I thought his response was more nudged down to third man than a flashing cover drive to the boundary.
	I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Best. I think we have extracted the juice from this orange. I do not think there was a necessity for a two-tier test, given the points the noble Lord, Lord Best, made, but the evening is moving on, and we will not advance the arguments any further now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I can be brief on these amendments too. They achieve three separate effects. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 give up a ministerial delegated power that has not been used in over45 years. Amendment No. 11 allows the general income threshold for the registration of charities to be varied by order at any time. That amendment was needed because the Bill had inadvertently been drafted to prevent variation of that threshold before a report had been made to Parliament on the operation of the Act. We have had a lot of debate in the past about thresholds, so I know the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will see the importance of that. That report need not be commissioned until five years after Royal Assent. The Conservatives were keen, and Ministers have agreed, that the registration threshold, and other thresholds, should be reviewed much sooner than that, and that changes in thresholds should be made if necessary.
	Other amendments in this group allow different provisions within the new registration arrangements to be brought into force at different times. The point of doing that is simply to ensure that the Charity Commission can manage the flow of new registrations in a smooth and orderly way. As I understand it, none of those amendments were at all controversial in another place. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons with their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122.
	Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 were recommended by the parliamentary draftsman, to achieve clarity in the wording of the Bill. They do not change the meaning or effect of the Bill.
	I am led to understand that Amendment No. 122, however, makes a more substantive change, to preserve an existing power which continues to be useful and which the Bill would, without this amendment, inadvertently have repealed. It is to do with the regulation of street collections. The Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 currently allows local authorities to regulate such collections. The provisions of the Charities Bill will replace those of the 1916 Act for the regulation of street collections which are for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, but the Bill will not make provision for the regulation of street collections for purposes other than charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes. The effect of the amendment is to preserve local authorities' powers under the 1916 Act to regulate street collections for purposes other than charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes.
	The particular example mentioned to us as justifying the preservation of this power was the collection by animal rights activists, some of whom might deserve the label of extremists and who might use the proceeds of collections for purposes which were clearly not charitable, philanthropic or benevolent. We think it right that local authorities should continue to have the power to regulate such collections. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots and Lord Shutt of Greetland, would agree with me on that.
	I am sure that we could think of other collections that were not charitable, and do not fall into that definition, where it is quite right that the local authority has a regulatory role. I know that a number of my colleagues in another place have made that case forcefully. I pay tribute in particular to my long-term friend and colleague David Lepper, MP, who has drawn attention to some of the difficulties that can arise through less than philanthropic or charitable activity by some street collectors.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	46: Clause 63, page 68, line 19, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	47: Page 69, line 10, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	48: Clause 68, page 73, line 20, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	49: Clause 69, page 73, line 26, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	50: Clause 70, page 75, line 5, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "A relevant Minister"
	51: Page 75, line 16, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	52: Page 75, line 20, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	53: Page 75, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	54: Page 75, line 30, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	55: Page 75, line 34, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	56: Page 75, line 35, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "A relevant Minister"
	57: Page 76, line 2, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a relevant Minister"
	58: Page 76, line 3, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	59: Page 76, line 4, leave out "the exercise of" and insert "any exercise by him of any"
	60: Page 76, line 6, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	61: Page 76, line 11, at end insert-
	"(11) In this section "relevant Minister" means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office."
	62: Before Clause 72, insert the following new Clause-
	"Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator
	(1) This section applies if a body (referred to in this section as "the Northern Ireland regulator") is established to exercise functions in Northern Ireland which are similar in nature to the functions exercised in England and Wales by the Charity Commission.
	(2) The Minister may by regulations authorise relevant public authorities to disclose information to the Northern Ireland regulator for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Northern Ireland regulator to discharge any of its functions.
	(3) If the regulations authorise the disclosure of Revenue and Customs information, they must contain provision in relation to that disclosure which corresponds to the provision made in relation to the disclosure of such information by section 10(2) to (4) of the 1993 Act (as substituted by paragraph 99 of Schedule to this Act).
	(4) In the case of information disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator pursuant to regulations made under this section, any power of the Northern Ireland regulator to disclose the information is exercisable subject to any express restriction subject to which the information was disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator.
	(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to Revenue and Customs information disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator pursuant to regulations made under this section; but any such information may not be further disclosed except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	(6) Any person specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made under this sectionwho discloses information in contravention of subsection (5) is guilty of an offence and liable-
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both.
	(7) It is a defence for a person charged withan offence under subsection (5) of disclosing information to prove that he reasonably believed-
	(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or
	(b) that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public.
	(8) In the application of this section to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the reference to 12 months in subsection (6) is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
	(9) In this section-
	"relevant public authority" means-
	(a)any government department (other than a Northern Ireland department),
	(b)any local authority in England, Wales or Scotland,
	(c)any person who is a constable in England and Wales or Scotland,
	(d)any other body or person discharging functions of a public nature (including a body or person discharging regulatory functions in relation to any description of activities), except a body or person whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters;
	"Revenue and Customs information" means information held as mentioned in section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11);
	"transferred matter" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47)."
	63: Clause 72, page 77, line 21, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	64: Page 77, line 31, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	65: Page 77, line 34, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	66: Page 77, line 40, leave out from "the" to ", it" and insert "appointed day (within the meaning of section of this Act"
	67: Clause 73, page 78, line 2, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a relevant Minister"
	68: Page 78, line 9, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant Minister"
	69: Page 78, line 10, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a relevant Minister"
	70: Page 78, line 16, at end insert-
	"(ba) any regulations under section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator),"
	71: Page 78, line 19, after "" insert "or (Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions)"
	72: Page 78, line 21, after "(b)" insert "(ba)"
	73: Page 78, line 22, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a relevant Minister"
	74: Page 78, line 28, at end insert-
	"(7) In this section "relevant Minister" means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office."
	75: Clause 74, page 78, line 34, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "A relevant Minister"
	76: Page 78, line 41, at end insert "(including an enactment restating, with or without modifications, an enactment amended by this Act)."
	77: Page 78, line 41, at end insert-
	"(6) In this section "relevant Minister" means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office."
	78: Clause 75, page 79, line 2, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	79: Clause 76, page 80, line 8, at end insert-
	"(5A) In this Act "the Minister" means the Minister for the Cabinet Office."
	80: Before Clause 77, insert the following new Clause-
	"Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions
	(1) The Minister may by order make such amendments of the 1993 Act or this Act as he considers appropriate-
	(a) in consequence of, or in connection with, any changes made or to be made by any enactment to the provisions of company law relating to the accounts of charitable companies or to the auditing of, or preparation of reports in respect of, such accounts;
	(b) for the purposes of, or in connection with, applying provisions of Schedule 5A to the 1993 Act (group accounts) to charitable companies that are not required to produce group accounts under company law.
	(2) In this section-
	"accounts" includes group accounts;
	"amendments" includes repeals and modifications;
	"charitable companies" means companies which are charities;
	"company law" means the enactments relating to companies."
	81: Clause 77, page 80, line 15, at end insert-
	"(ca) section (Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions),"
	82: Page 80, line 17, at end insert-
	"(f) the following provisions of Schedule -
	paragraph 88(1A),
	paragraph 99 so far as it confers power to make regulations, and
	paragraph 169(c),
	and section (1) so far as relating to those provisions."
	83: Page 80, line 18, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	84: Page 80, line 22, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister"
	85: Clause 78, page 80, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert-
	"(3) The following provisions extend also to Scotland-
	(a) sections to and ,
	(b) section (5),
	(c) sections (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator) and ,
	(d) section (2) and (3) and Schedules and so far as relating to the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17), and
	(e) section (4) and (5), sections to and this section.
	(3A) But the provisions referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (d) affect the law of Scotland only so far as they affect the construction of references to charities or charitable purposes in enactments which relate to matters falling within Section A1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (reserved matters: fiscal policy etc.); and so far as they so affect the law of Scotland-
	(a) references in sections (1) and (1) to the law of England and Wales are to be read as references to the law of Scotland, and
	(b) the reference in section (1) to the High Court is to be read as a reference to the Court of Session.
	(3B) The following provisions extend also to Northern Ireland-
	(a) sections to and ,
	(b) section (5),
	(c) section ,
	(d) sections (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator) and ,
	(e) section (2) and (3) and Schedules and so far as relating to the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17), and
	(f) section (4) and (5), sections to and this section.
	(3C) But the provisions referred to in subsection (3B)(a) and (e) affect the law of Northern Ireland only so far as they affect the construction of references to charities or charitable purposes in enactments which relate to matters falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) (excepted matters: taxes and duties); and so far as they so affect the law of Northern Ireland-
	(a) references in sections (1) and (1) to the law of England and Wales are to be read as references to the law of Northern Ireland, and
	(b) the reference in section (1) to the High Court is to be read as a reference to the High Court in Northern Ireland."
	86: Page 80, line 34, leave out "But this does not apply to" and insert-
	"(6) But subsection (5) does not apply to any amendment or repeal made in the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17) by a provision referred to in subsection (3) or (3B).
	(6A) Subsection (5) also does not apply to-
	(a) "
	87: Page 80, line 35, after "(c. 6)," insert "or
	(b) those made by Schedule in the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31), or
	(c) the repeal made in that Act by Schedule ,"
	88: Page 80, line 36, leave out subsection (7)

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 90 to 99.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the debate we had on this matter was important, and we should remind ourselves of its outlines. I can only repeat—perhaps with extra emphasis—that we value the independence of the commission, which is essential. We believe it is there, in fact, and I dispute some of the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I thought I made clear how we see the situation, particularly with regard to pay and conditions, which commission staff, in the main, are very happy with. They were certainly unhappy about the prospect of being outside the Home Civil Service. They were not too chuffed about that idea at all, and were somewhat horrified when they discovered what the effect of the amendment might be. We gave a lot of thought to the legal status of the commission, and we came up with what we thought was most appropriate and would work best. Earlier, I made a comparison with the Food Standards Agency, which is, perhaps, the closest comparison we can come up with among regulators. I do not hear too many complaints about that organisation's independence, and I know that people greatly value the way in which it works.
	Of course, it is never an entirely closed story, and there is an opportunity to review the way in which the Bill works. I am sure that noble Lords will not have missed the importance of Clause 72, which requires the commission's status as a government department to be considered as part of the review of the impact of the legislation. A person must be appointed to carry out the review within five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and that issue will be reported and laid before Parliament for further discussion and consideration. It might be that in four or five years' time, people will take a different view about the way in which the commission operates and, as a Government, we would be foolish to ignore criticism at that stage. We will judge any case for a change in the status of the commission on its merits. However, a coherent alternative has not been presented to us. We think that what we have designed works well in legislative terms and, important though this debate on independence has been, we have something that has worked well and will work well in future. I hope with that the noble Lord will feel happier and will not oppose this amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I will to be as helpful as I can on the points raised. Essentially both noble Lords were asking about the distinction between the provisions of new Section 10A(1)(a) and 10A(1)(b). The provisions are considered to have a similar effect to the existing provision in Section 10 of the 1993 Act. That is how we approach this issue. They give the commission the power to disclose information to another relevant body, whether the main purpose in doing so is to assist that body to discharge its functions under new Section 10A(1)(a) or where it is relevant to the other public authority's function under new Section 10A(1)(b). The second part will enable the commission to disclose information to other public bodies in circumstances where it can assist the commission to discharge its functions.
	An example might be when the commission passes information to the police about bogus fundraisers: it may be less concerned with the prevention or detection of crime—the function of the police—than with protecting charity property through the hope that a prosecution will put the people concerned out of business. Another example where new Section 10A (1)(b) might apply would be where the commission passes information passes to HM Revenue and Customs about failings of a charity's employee tax administration that it had discovered in the course of an investigation. Of course, the commission may be less concerned with the collection of tax than with the hope that the impact of a Revenue and Customs intervention will promote better charity governance in future.
	Amendment No. 130 does not make a lot of radical changes to the exchange of information provisions that have been in place for many years—in particular, as I said, in Section 10 of the Charities Act 1993. Those provisions emerged in the 1980s following abuses of charity tax reliefs for personal gain which, at that stage, were identified by the Inland Revenue. It found that, where abuses were taking place, the organisations or individuals involved would give different explanations and accounts of their actions to the Revenue than to the Charity Commission. There is no surprise there. The introduction of the information-sharing powers enabled a joined-up response to ensure that any abuses of tax relief for personal gain were effectively addressed.
	I entirely understand where the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is coming from. I appreciate his point about data creep, because that is what it amounts to. That is a theme that he and other noble Lords have referred to many times. The amendments will strengthen and modernise the information-sharing regime. They will enable it to work better and have a more rigorous framework around it, so that the principal regulators can properly fulfil their duties under the Act. It is common knowledge to us all that the Data Protection Act 1998 protections are there. As I said, they include the Charity Commission and the principal regulators of exempt charities. The safeguards contained in that legislation are there to provide protection to the public relating to the handling, storage and disclosure of personal information.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was also concerned about how staff might handle the issue internally. I fully recognise that; he made an important point. It will be for us to ensure that Charity Commission staff are well trained, understand the import of Data Protection Act protections and are trained in handling these sensitive data. That will be important. We have underlined the seriousness of offences that can be committed by ensuring that we are very clear about the import of those issues. That is why we have specifically created offences relating to the unlawful onward disclosure of Revenue and Customs information. As I explained earlier, that is consistent with the offence of unlawful disclosure in Section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which applies to Revenue and Customs staff.
	That is my explanation of what we seek to achieve. I think that I have covered the main points about which noble Lords were concerned. If I have not, I am more than happy to write with further, better particulars—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131 to 154.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall get a figure for that, but I am not using a different figure from that used in Grand Committee. The figure that I have just given is different, because I was making a different assessment. Fifty-five per cent of people gain or pay the same; in other words, they pay lower rates or pay the same. The figure that I have just used is 68 per cent of people, who will gain, pay the same or pay less than £1 extra. That is what I have just said, and it is completely consistent with what I said in Grand Committee. These are two separate assessments. I have now used a figure that also includes people who will pay less than £1 extra. Sixty-eight per cent will gain—that is, they will pay lower rates—will pay the same or will pay less than £1 a week extra. That gives a scale. One in five people in Northern Ireland pay no rates anyway. Under this system, more than one in five will pay no rates. The rebate system will be more generous than it is under the present system.
	As I said, a pensioner couple living in a house worth £500,000 on the state pension will pay no rates. I also gave a figure in Grand Committee for a couple living in a house worth £500,000. That couple would have to have an income of £35,000 a year or £16,000 in savings before they were taken out of the rebate system. So it is not true that we have not considered the people on the margins who are asset-rich and income-poor. We have tried to devise a system that is fairer and more up to date. In other words, it is a system that people understand because houses are bought and sold every week. It is the same all over the country. I challenge any noble Lord to explain rateable values based on notional rental values to people today. My eyes would glaze over, let alone those of the person to whom I was talking. They would not understand what I was on about. People understand a capital value, however.
	The assessment that was made was necessarily a snapshot of the position in January 2005. Generally, people would have sold a house for less then than they could in November 2006. It is important to start the system a reasonable amount of time after the snapshot was taken in January 2005. In other words, it should be started by April 2007 so that the figures are reasonably realistic. Obviously one needs to revalue properties over time. In Northern Ireland, the Rate Collection Agency of the Department of the Environment knows much more about properties because of what it has been doing over the years than we do in England. The whole point is that what is happening in Northern Ireland is fit for Northern Ireland. It is not a test bed. The people of Northern Ireland are not being used as an experiment.
	As I have said repeatedly, and notwithstanding the Lyons review and all the material that has been in the press in the past few days, it is a fairer system that takes account of the ability to pay. However, the ability to pay is not the prime factor in a dwelling that has been adapted because of the owner's disability. There will be a reduction in the valuation of their rates irrespective of their income. That valuation is therefore not related to that person's ability to pay. The concession for people whose dwelling has been adapted because of their disability may therefore have increased in value because various factors have been incorporated. That concession is made irrespective of their income. It does not matter whether they are poor, on a medium income, on a pension or whatever their income is; that concession is available. It is true that it is not related to the ability to pay. We wanted a scheme that was related as closely as possible to the ability to pay but that was also property-based. Property-based taxes are much easier to collect, as are people-based taxes, as we discovered when the unwise poll tax was instituted. In terms of value for money, you do not want to spend a lot of money collecting rates.
	I fully accept—we can discuss this—that Northern Ireland's system for water charges is different from that in the rest of Great Britain. Water charges need to be up front and levied in a way in which more income comes into Northern Ireland to be spent in Northern Ireland and so that a borrowing capacity can be created that is not there under the current arrangements. I realise that the cost of living and incomes and earnings are somewhat lower in Northern Ireland than they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that public expenditure per head is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Even now, a cap is possible—we have discussed this issue, and I will conclude on this point—so that no one in Northern Ireland would pay a rate that was greater than the highest rate in England.
	As I have said, we need to introduce the new system because we will simply not be able to operate the present rating system from next April. I accept that that is not a fait accompli because it is subject to parliamentary approval. Given the time that we have taken over this, we freely admit that it would be incredibly difficult to operate the present rating system because the IT systems and all the procedures are in place to operate the new system. That is why the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is not really tenable or practical in the present circumstances. It would cause the utmost chaos in the collection of local government revenues in Northern Ireland next year.
	On the other hand, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is seductive in that I want to hear him make a robust case for it. I will think about it while he is speaking and make an assessment, because we are prepared to be flexible. The Ministers in charge of this day to day have already said so. We need the consent of Parliament to introduce this system in the absence of the Assembly, although we would much prefer it to be the Assembly. The Executive and the Assembly started this process. They have at least identified something that needed to be done. I am not blaming them for choosing capital values. They considered 12 options. They were disbanded in, I think, October 2002, and direct-rule Ministers decided the way to go in December 2002. The four years since have been spent planning in the most meticulous detail.
	We are confident that the system will work. It is modern and fairer, and it creates more gainers than losers. That is very necessary when one is changing the tax system, although the gainers do not always thank you for it. The losers are easily identified, as they can be quite vociferous. As I said in Grand Committee, one cannot defend the present system, which asks people on low incomes living in low-value properties to pay a disproportionately higher share than a fairer system would ask them to pay, compared with those living in the high-value properties. The idea that there are no high-value properties in Northern Ireland can be dispelled by driving around Northern Ireland for a few hours. It is a fairer system designed for Northern Ireland and nowhere else. As I have said, there will be more gainers than losers, and it has the necessary concessions to make it work and to make it as closely based on the ability to pay as possible, bearing in mind that it is a property-based tax. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this order brings to a conclusion the reform of the domestic rates in Northern Ireland on which the Government have embarked. It replaces the existing system with a new one—which is unique, but who knows for how long, in the United Kingdom—based on the capital value of a property. It is a tax on house prices, pure and simple. It is a modern-day window tax, in which government inspectors even take into account whether a house has double glazing.
	As I said in Committee, we are not opposed to reform of rates in Northern Ireland, but we are completely opposed to this new system. As my party leader, David Cameron, wrote in the Belfast Telegraph two weeks ago, it is just "unjust". Many people in Northern Ireland, through no action of their own but simply as a result of the peace process, have seen the value of their property rocket in recent years. Parts of Northern Ireland now have the fastest-rising house prices anywhere in the UK. I am not just talking about south Belfast and North Down, but Lisburn and Newry as well. Increases in property values have far outstripped the growth in incomes. As a result, many people who happen to live in a higher-value property area will literally be clobbered. People on fixed incomes—pensioners who might be asset-rich, but in cash terms, poor—single-person households and those just outside the benefits system will be hit especially hard.
	It is not just those people who live in what we might think of in London as higher-value properties. People in fairly modest homes will also be hurt. It is no good the Minister claiming that more than half of homes in Ulster will see a decrease in the amount that they pay in rates when the new system will produce some quite exceptional increases. Let us take the retired teacher who bought his house 16 years ago for £58,000. It is now valued at £290,000 by contractors for the Valuation and Lands Agency. As a result he has just been informed that his rates bill will go up from around £1,000 to £2,000. That is over £700 more than the £1,300 in council tax that the Prime Minister pays on his £3.3 million house in Connaught Square. If he lived in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister would now be facing a rates bill of around £22,000. Yet the Secretary of State boasted at this year's Labour Party Conference that he is introducing a fairer system of local taxation in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House where the fairness is in that—some peace dividend for decent, hardworking families in Northern Ireland.
	To gather the information required to implement the new system involves huge erosions of liberty. Unprecedented powers are being given to the Government to compile data on family homes, literally to spy on people using aerial photographs and the like. I mention too the sinister Article 38 powers of entry and invasions of privacy for government inspectors to assess, with fines for those who simply want to keep the snoopers out. The new system is unjust and undemocratic. It is opposed overwhelmingly across the community in Northern Ireland. It is opposed by all the Northern Ireland political parties, and I have letters from them all, bar Sinn Fein. Yet the Government plough on regardless. Why is that? They do so because the same Government that put off the council tax revaluation in England because they feared an electoral backlash do not contest a single vote in Northern Ireland. So the Government think that they can get away with it. This is yet another example of the Government's double standards.
	The reality is that if this system were not introduced this coming April, it would not affect the Northern Ireland budget by one halfpenny. We have been told time and again by Ministers that the reform is supposedly revenue-neutral, so it is hardly pressing. What is the hurry? We believe that local government finance should be left to the local people in Northern Ireland to decide, not imposed as an experiment by Labour Government Ministers.
	There is no reason why this matter could not have awaited the restoration of an Assembly. At St Andrews the Government sought to use rates as part of the negotiations to restore devolution. Capping and extra help for pensioners is either right and should be introduced on its own merits, or it is not. It should not form part of an attempt to blackmail Unionists into sharing power with Sinn Fein. The Conservative Party believes that there should be a cap and extra help for poorer pensioners, irrespective of whether the parties sign up to St Andrews and devolution is restored. That is why I tabled the amendment on the Order Paper in my name. I have listened with care to what the Minister had to say and will listen to his response. If he meets the letter and spirit of my amendment, which would be a welcome change of heart on the part of the Government, it will go some way to minimising the impact of the legislation on large numbers of people.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am coming to that. My noble friend will have my answer shortly. Let me be clear: if the Government do what is asked in my Motion, it will in no way diminish our dislike of the new system. It remains rotten, unjust and undemocratic. That is not just our view, but that of the people across the community in Northern Ireland who face higher bills and who are to be used as guinea pigs for England. If these matters are not devolved to the Assembly, then when there is a Conservative Government, we will abolish the rights of snoopers to enter people's homes throughout the United Kingdom. And I give this pledge to the people of Northern Ireland: we will certainly review the system which Labour is imposing on them today.
	This is a deplorable policy being used in what many of us find a distasteful way. But—and this is where I answer my noble friend—we are an unelected House and we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume the government of Northern Ireland if the other place has given its consent and we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, what a delicate stage this is in negotiations.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I rise primarily to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. He read extracts from letters that a number of us have received from the various parties in Northern Ireland. They have come from five political parties in Northern Ireland and are very clear: four of them specifically request your Lordships to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, because it is a fatal amendment and because they do not wish the order to be passed in this House tonight. I believe that the omission in the case of the fifth party is purely inadvertent because I am sure that it is equally opposed to the passing of this order. That is our position also.
	I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He made a very strong case against the order. He gave very good examples of its impact, particularly his comparison with what the Prime Minister would be paying on his property were it to apply to him. The Fair Rates Campaign brought to our attention the case of a pensioner who now faces a bill of £14,000 per annum. These rates are penal. With the greatest respect, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is no good bandying figures about gainers and losers when some people will be subject to absolutely penal rates.
	The absence of a cap is utterly and totally indefensible. It is a simple matter of citizenship, fairness and equity when such caps exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom and we have a system brought in which, together with the rapid changes there have been in capital values in recent years, will have a hugely penal effect on some people. It will not have as much effect on me as it will on others. My house is not as grand as others and I might not be too badly off. I think I might face an increase of only around30 to 40 per cent—but that is nothing compared to what some noble Lords sitting not very far away from me are facing.
	I was less than satisfied by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the question of what happens if one takes out of these figures those whose rates are paid for by others. The question was raised in Grand Committee and I thought that by the time the issue came here the Minister would have equivalent figures. I am sorry that we did not get them. Instead, we have a figure which rather gilds the lily. On his figures, as given in the Grand Committee, there are said to be 55 per cent gainers but he gets it up to 68 per cent by including those who are only losing a little. The ones who are losing a little are not gainers—a simple point—and the balance between advantage and disadvantage is very narrow. In any event, it is quite indefensible to bring this forward when it has such an unfair impact. As I said, the Northern Ireland parties have made their position clear: they do not want this order to pass.
	The review started under the Northern Ireland Assembly when I was First Minister. I can assure the House that had the review been completed while I was First Minister this would not have happened; we would not have had it in this form. Yes, changes would have been made—and they might even have been made by reference to capital values—but the legislation would not have come forward in this form. Of that I am absolutely sure, just as I am absolutely sure that the review of public administration which I started would have come out with a very different result from that which occurred after we had direct rule and after the rats got at it. In case anyone should misinterpret that particular comment, I should say that I am not referring to anyone present.
	I am indebted to Mr David Ford for my final point. He will be surprised by that phrase, but that is by the way. He makes the point that if the proposed changes are revenue-neutral, Her Majesty's Treasury should not object to a postponement. The reason for objecting to a postponement is because of the administrative difficulties, which leaves one with the mind-boggling suggestion that civil servants, for once, are unable to continue doing what they have been doing up until now. I have never encountered this situation before—it is truly remarkable—and I do not think it is a good enough reason for not allowing the democratic principle to apply.
	That democratic principle is absolutely clear: the Minister is introducing this order without a single shred of democratic validity or authority for his proposal. The authority and democratic validity lies in the opposite direction, primarily with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, which we will support.
	I have spoken for much longer than I intended. Given the hour and the circumstances, the longer the debate goes on the fewer noble Lords there will be around to vote, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I feel I should make a few remarks in case folk in this House run away with the idea that everyone is on an increase. I find myself in a difficult position in regard to rates because my rates will almost halve; I am one person who will benefit. But that does not take away from the fact that I think this is completely unfair. I could give instance after instance of people who bought houses when the Troubles broke out and moved to what they thought were safe areas. Today they are chic areas and prices are sky high. Those people are living on the same income—they have been pensioners for years—and are simply at their wits' end as to how they will to meet the increase. In some cases the rates will double and treble. Like my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I have been inundated with people writing to me and asking me to vote against this.
	I cannot see the problem with the two amendments. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, because it suggests working with the local parties and capping, but I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. Why not just leave the matter to the local parties? We are constantly being told by the Secretary of State that this is just over the cusp; that we are just about to get an agreement. I think it would be good if locally elected people came on board and considered the matter. If they say the system is fair, people can kick them instead of us.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer all the points. I think the justice and mercy comes from establishing a fairer system. No one has referred to those who are paying a disproportionate amount at the present time simply because we are working on 1968 valuations. That is the reality of what we have got at the moment.
	Perhaps I may respond a little more formally by using my notes—I did not use any notes when I spoke before—so that I get it right. I have indicated that the process has reached a critical stage and any delay, no matter how short—we have left this as late as we could in this Session, although I fully agree the order could go over—would mean that it would not be possible to have the mechanisms in place. This was not done on the back of an envelope; we are dealing with 720,000 dwellings. The IT systems required by the rate collection agency and the appointment of members of the valuation tribunals are all needed to implement these reforms. If we were unable to introduce the new system we would soldier on with the old system somehow, under which many people are paying a much greater share than they should be.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is not the first order. Other parts of the parliamentary process have been applied to this; it has not been done furtively. I did not make the case; the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, reminded us that the House of Commons approved the order. The idea that we are proceeding without parliamentary approval is nonsense. There has been more than one order associated with this change to get the process up and running and enable the figures to be produced, for a start. We approved an order in the summer that was tied in with this; it was made abundantly clear then that the next order would be the final piece of the jigsaw. So this is not out on its own, but there is a knock-on effect on water charges.
	I should like to put these figures on the record just so that there is no misunderstanding. The average level of household taxation in the UK in 2006-07—the total household charge, which is the property charge and the water direct charge—is £1,350 in England; in Wales it is £1,126; in Scotland it is £1,253; and in Northern Ireland it is £668. There is a substantial difference; it is also shown if one takes out the water charge which in England, Wales and Scotland averages £290.
	The delay in the timing is important. Parliament has not been presented with a fait accompli, and this is not the first piece of the jigsaw. I hope that that point is accepted.
	The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, asked a question that he had asked in Committee. Like most of these matters, it is not straightforward. Let me give the figures relating to housing benefit. At present, 25 per cent of households—about 180,000—receive help with their rates. Twenty per cent of households receive full support—that is, 100 per cent. About 40,000 households will benefit from the rate relief scheme implied in the order. The rate relief scheme and the housing benefit will benefit about 185,000 households.
	One problem is that we do not know—in a way, we cannot—the proportion of winners or losers who are on benefits. That information is not available. We can work out the information with regard to houses because we have the figures for house valuations, but it is not correct to state that all or most of the winners will be on benefits. They will not be, as I indicated in the example I gave.
	There is something else I need to remind the House about, particularly those noble Lords who have declared their interest properly and will be paying more. There is a transitional relief which is not means-tested. It is a three-year process, which means that people will not pay more than a third of the increase in each of the years. The average award will be £178. Some 100,000 people will benefit from the transitional relief in 2007-08. It is not something we are doing willy-nilly.
	The point about the Lyons inquiry was seductive. Everyone is waiting for the report. Sir Michael Lyons is reviewing the system of local government and local government finance in England. We have reviewed it in Northern Ireland. I fully admit that it was without a democratic mandate, although it started off with one. The options were disclosed and put in for debate by the democratic mandate before the Assembly was suspended. But Northern Ireland has reviewed its system of local government and local government finance. The system in Northern Ireland is pre-poll tax. There is bound to be unfairness in a system that uses 1968 valuations, so Lyons is not relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, called this a modern window tax. I think that is a bit unfair. There has been no erosion of civil liberty. The powers of entry were never used. No one has had the inside of their house checked to see how good the decoration is. That is why there is a difference between capital value and market value. We have assumed that every property is in an average state of repair.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is perfectly open to the noble Lord to say that, but if a hole in budget results from it, it is incumbent on him to say what he would do. One cannot simply say, "No, we don't like this" when I have informed the House that the budget depends on it. We have to raise the money somehow—the money has to be raised. I have given the figures for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have set out the consequences of not proceeding with the water charge. It would leave a massive hole in the budget which would have to be found from the block.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is budget neutral for the property rates—I have made that clear. It is not designed to raise money. The water charges are a quite separate issue.
	I conclude because I shall convince some noble Lords but not others. I realise the force of the arguments of noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He said that the order is not democratic and that it is unfair. He made a case, as a case can be made—it is a political judgment—but after four years of research, six years after the start of the process, and 32 weeks at least of various consultations, we have a difficulty. The noble Lord will say that if a Conservative government returns, they will do certain things. That is their choice; that is where the power lies. If the Assembly is in existence, it is wholly within its power to change the system if it so wishes. As I said to the noble Baroness, it will be in charge.
	However, we want to ameliorate the system where we can at the edges, so that there is perceived to be less unfairness in what is proposed. I have said that we want a fairer system. The noble Lord's amendment proposes the setting of a valuation cap. I suppose that we may call it the prime ministerial figure. I did not use that phrase; I am only quoting what has been said in this House—I would not dream of making a comparison between the Prime Minister's properties, although others have. In the spirit of not wanting my Prime Minister to be challenged in that way, we recognise that there is a seductive argument for setting a cap. In addition—I have said that pensioners near the margin will benefit, because we have raised the housing benefit limits—we would prepared to look even beyond that. Money—it is a modest amount—can be found to meet the pensioners' situation. I am therefore prepared to recommend to my noble friends that we accept entirely the noble Lord's amendment and attach it to the government Motion. Therefore, the Motion would contain not only my words—one normally says, "Believe the Minister because it is in Hansard". If we put the Motion as amended to the House, it will become part of the parliamentary process and that will be the Motion which the House passes. It calls quite specifically for a cap. It states that we have to work with the political parties in Northern Ireland and find more money for pensioners at the margin. On that basis, I commend my Motion, with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, attached to it word for word, to the House.